These transforms have some interesting properties. One is that---assuming we never reduce inside a lambda term, but only when redexes are present in the outermost level---the formulas generated by these transforms will always only have a single candidate redex to be reduced at any stage. In other words, the generated expressions dictate in what order the components from the original expressions will be evaluated. As it happens, the first transform above forces a *call-by-name* reduction order: assuming `M N` to be a redex, redexes inside `N` will be evaluated only after `N` has been substituted into `M`. And the second transform forces a *call-by-value* reduction order. These reduction orders will be forced no matter what the native reduction order of the interpreter is, just so long as we're only allowed to reduce redexes not underneath lambdas.

-Plotkin did important early work with CPS transforms (around 1975), and they are now a staple of academic computer science.

+Plotkin did important early work with CPS transforms, and they are now a staple of academic computer science. (See the end of his 1975 paper [Call-by-name, call-by-value, and the lambda-calculus](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/gdp/publications/cbn_cbv_lambda.pdf).)

Here's another interesting fact about these transforms. Compare the translations for variables and applications in the call-by-value transform: